'What about building 7'?

[grandmastershek]

Yep. Meanwhile MM's idea of the "level roof line" includes the kink.

Plus:

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7leansouth-1.jpg[/qimg]

Pretty much. We very quickly learned MM's understanding of "level" is not what the rest of the non-"truth" world would consider as such. Hence why he needs to use weasel words. But then again, this is the guy who said it "maintained" being level even when confronted with contrary facts and now we have another angle proving it was not level. Either MM has never actually seen the footage, or chooses to ignore it as it contradicts his "truth". I'm betting the latter. So how will MM treat this evidence? No doubt his truth blinders will go on. Here is the video that pic is from:



Here is a better video of the angle I provided. Of course no detonations.

 

[BasqueArch]

gerrycan what happened to you. I have two posts from days ago you said everything in them was wrong and that you would answer in a day. You know a promise is a debt.

 

[pgimeno]

Furthermore, the NIST described what they hypothesized was actually occurring inside 7WTC, which has been the primary basis for my disagreement.

What do you suggest to improve that?

 

[gerrycan]

So I fact-checked this and guess what I found?

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/H3016-P3016-B2002-C79.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/NCSTAR1-9vol2fig11-35.png[/qimg]​

- The connection of beam H3016 failed, as did that of two other beams next to it.
- Beam P3016 connected to the girder whose walk-of gerrycan disputes, A2001. And there is no dispute on the failure of the connection between that girder and column 79, therefore such beam didn't restrain C79 in any possible way.
- Girder B2002 buckled.

Maybe Gerrycan was confused and meant A2002 instead of B2002? Alas, buckled too.

So much for column 79 being "heavily restrained" from displacing East due to expansion of the girder between C76 and C79.

The figure that you chose use shows only horizontal connection damage and you failed to mention that. It shows that the C79 south and west connections have no damage and that the C79-44 girder connection has failed horizontally.
The corresponding figure which in the draft report is directly below yours, shows connection damage vertically and that the connection between the girder and column 79 had sustained no damage.
Maybe you should post both figures and make it clear to which type of connection damage each is referring, considering that these figures are right next to each other and clearly marked. That you have to resort to cutting and pasting figures out of context and using them to misrepresent and mislead merely highlights the weakness of your position.
Do the right thing and post both the figures with their correct titles.

 

[pgimeno]

The figure that you chose use shows only horizontal connection damage and you failed to mention that. It shows that the C79 south and west connections have no damage and that the C79-44 girder connection has failed horizontally.
The corresponding figure which in the draft report is directly below yours, shows connection damage vertically and that the connection between the girder and column 79 had sustained no damage.

Not in mine. Why are you using the draft report? I'm using the final report.

Maybe you should post both figures and make it clear to which type of connection damage each is referring, considering that these figures are right next to each other and clearly marked. That you have to resort to cutting and pasting figures out of context and using them to misrepresent and mislead merely highlights the weakness of your position.
Do the right thing and post both the figures with their correct titles.

Sure. Here you go.

Not that it makes any difference to the case in point.

 

[pgimeno]

That you have to resort to cutting and pasting figures out of context and using them to misrepresent and mislead merely highlights the weakness of your position.

Ahem... Still trying to kill the messenger? It failed on you every time you tried, and it makes you look really desperate. It's not "my" position. It's NIST's position that you have misrepresented, due to a wishful misread. I'm merely pointing out what you failed to comprehend.

At any rate, it's obvious by now that you are not an engineer. Even those who signed AE911's petition aren't that incompetent.

So you can now run back to "your team" to ask what your next move should be.

 

[Animal]

So you can now run back to "your team" to ask what your next move should be.

 

[pgimeno]

But wait, there's more!

So I fact-checked this and guess what I found?

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/H3016-P3016-B2002-C79.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/NCSTAR1-9vol2fig11-35.png[/qimg]​

- The connection of beam H3016 failed, as did that of two other beams next to it.
- Beam P3016 connected to the girder whose walk-of gerrycan disputes, A2001. And there is no dispute on the failure of the connection between that girder and column 79, therefore such beam didn't restrain C79 in any possible way.
- Girder B2002 buckled.

Maybe Gerrycan was confused and meant A2002 instead of B2002? Alas, buckled too.

So much for column 79 being "heavily restrained" from displacing East due to expansion of the girder between C76 and C79.

What was discussed was gerrycan's claim that the girder was "heavily restrained" preventing it from moving east.

What direction would be affected if you were considering whether column 79 could displace East? Horizontal or vertical?

 

[Miragememories]

"I find it telling that "truthers" choose to make their starting point for the collapse half way through. They don't like to deal with the disappearance of the penthouses or the kink.

Those are the important features, the "truthers", as usual are late to the party."

"Yep.

Meanwhile MM's idea of the "level roof line" includes the kink."

"We very quickly learned MM's understanding of "level" is not what the rest of the non-"truth" world would consider as such.

Hence why he needs to use weasel words.

But then again, this is the guy who said it "maintained" being level even when confronted with contrary facts and now we have another angle proving it was not level.

Either MM has never actually seen the footage, or chooses to ignore it as it contradicts his "truth". I'm betting the latter.

So how will MM treat this evidence?

No doubt his truth blinders will go on.

Even though it was a big waste of time, I looked over this thread to confirm that I have been consistent in my statements regarding the collapse of 7WTC.

Regarding the relatively level descending roofline, I never denied or had reason to deny, the kink, which is a common characteristic in buildings demolished by controlled demolition implosion at their centre core.

Additionally, I never stated that the relatively level roofline was maintained all the way to the ground.

It did remain relatively level from the start of global collapse and on through 8 storeys of freefall acceleration.

As the debris pile grew beneath it, of course the shape of the collapse was altered accordingly.

Further support for the argument that 7WTC was felled by a deliberate lower floor implosion, and not by a heat induced internal structural steel failure, can be deduced from construction photographs and screen captures of the north perimeter wall during the start of global collapse.

As you can see, the floors were solidly connected to the perimeter walls and window frames.

When the east penthouse collapsed, several floors below did reveal some but not a lot, of window breakage.

If column 79, as hypothesized by the NIST, was internally buckling and falling through most of the height of 7WTC, followed by the east penthouse, how was it possible that so little 'pull-in' damage occurred to the perimeter wall?

“They” did find the finger prints of explosives.

The official investigators (government) claimed they did not find any explosives because they didn’t look for them.

Essentially they decided to assemble a narrative without explosives so why look and find an inconvenient truth?

The evidence of explosive that is undisputed as far as I am concerned is that the building could not fall as quickly as they did UNLESS explosives destroyed the lower parts so the parts above could descend so fast and un impeded."

 

[LSSBB]

As you can see, the floors were solidly connected to the perimeter walls and window frames.

If column 79, as hypothesized by the NIST, was internally buckling and falling through most of the height of 7WTC, followed by the east penthouse, how was it possible that so little 'pull-in' damage occurred to the perimeter wall?

How close to the windows had the internal building collapse gotten at the time of the still you show? How much does the actual attachment to the exterior affect internal distortion? Exactly how strong or reistant to distortion was the part of the structure the windows were embedded in?

In answering the question of precisely how much damage there should be, I recommend you contract a capable engineering firm, or failing funding for that, obtain an appropriate level of skill to perform your own analysis, and get back to us. When you are able to get round to the task, I recommend you also simulate the effect of the types of explosives and their placements you surmise were in the building, and get back to us on that also.

Oh wait, you must have already done these things, because you have already rendered judgment. Please, by all means show your work.

 

[DGM]

If column 79, as hypothesized by the NIST, was internally buckling and falling through most of the height of 7WTC, followed by the east penthouse, how was it possible that so little 'pull-in' damage occurred to the perimeter wall?

Forgetting the kink?

Are you suggesting the demolition started at the top? If so, by what means, no blast effects are seen. If you're maintaining the demolition was towards the bottom then you also have to explain why it would look different than the NIST theory.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Even though it was a big waste of time, I looked over this thread to confirm that I have been consistent in my statements regarding the collapse of 7WTC.


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/7WTCpre911_zps266b3cee.png[/qimg]

Regarding the relatively level descending roofline, I never denied or had reason to deny, the kink, which is a common characteristic in buildings demolished by controlled demolition implosion at their centre

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/7WTCGlobalCollapseampKink_zps9daa945c.png[/qimg]


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/Julio-caidaWTC7_zps66d6d73b.jpg[/qimg]

Additionally, I never stated that the relatively level roofline was maintained all the way to the ground.

It did remain relatively level from the start of global collapse and on through 8 storeys of freefall acceleration.


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/WTC7LevelCollapse-lowcontr_zps62091716.png[/qimg]

As the debris pile grew beneath it, of course the shape of the collapse was altered accordingly.


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/Screenshot2015-02-21at80547AM_zps132798e8.png[/qimg]

Further support for the argument that 7WTC was felled by a deliberate lower floor implosion, and not by a heat induced internal structural steel failure, can be deduced from construction photographs and screen captures of the north perimeter wall during the start of global collapse.


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/WTC7EmptyFloors_zpsa5851618.png[/qimg]

As you can see, the floors were solidly connected to the perimeter walls and window frames.

When the east penthouse collapsed, several floors below did reveal some but not a lot, of window breakage.


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/EPenthouse-WTC7-droppedbelowroofline-UpperFacade-5336F_zps2ecd0b9c.png[/qimg]

If column 79, as hypothesized by the NIST, was internally buckling and falling through most of the height of 7WTC, followed by the east penthouse, how was it possible that so little 'pull-in' damage occurred to the perimeter wall?

You do know that you claim attachment of the masonary curtain
Walls to the steel frame interior structure, However you show
None where are the connectors and expansion joints.

 

[GlennB]

Are you suggesting the demolition started at the top? If so, by what means, no blast effects are seen. If you're maintaining the demolition was towards the bottom then you also have to explain why it would look different than the NIST theory.

Worth highlighting.

 

[pgimeno]

Regarding the relatively level descending roofline, I never denied or had reason to deny, the kink, which is a common characteristic in buildings demolished by controlled demolition implosion at their centre core.


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/7WTCGlobalCollapseampKink_zps9daa945c.png[/qimg]


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/Julio-caidaWTC7_zps66d6d73b.jpg[/qimg]

Speaking of the kink, can you show me where the kink is in the following picture?

In spite of some individuals efforts to show otherwise, the videos show how comparatively level the actual roofline was during global the collapse of 7WTC.


[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/WTC7LevelCollapse-lowcontr_zps62091716.png[/qimg]

For the record, I agree it was relatively level when comparing the east side to the west side (not so much when comparing north and south).

 

[pgimeno]

So I tried to understand gerrycan's claim:

The figure that you chose use shows only horizontal connection damage and you failed to mention that. It shows that the C79 south and west connections have no damage and that the C79-44 girder connection has failed horizontally.
The corresponding figure which in the draft report is directly below yours, shows connection damage vertically and that the connection between the girder and column 79 had sustained no damage.

For context, this part of the thread was discussing whether column 79 could have displaced eastwards, as NIST claims, and gerrycan was disputing it saying that the column was "heavily restrained" by H3016, P3016 and B2002:

Because the column is heavily restrained. Granted that between beam k3004 to the NE of the column, and beam D3004 to the SE of the column there is no beam tying C79 to C38, there is however H3016, P3016, and B2002, all heavily restraining the column.

That's the post that I replied to, and my reply is what gerrycan disputed.

Now, this is a map of where to locate these three elements:

H3016 is the beam west of the girder in question, P3016 is the short beam that connects to the center of said girder, and B2002 is the girder between columns 80 and 81. gerrycan essentially said that these elements prevented horizontal movement of the column to the east.

I downloaded the draft report to know what gerrycan was talking about, and I found that in it, NIST shows no damage to the connection at the C79 side of the girder between C44 and C79 in the vertical direction, but it failed in the horizontal direction. I don't know if that is a mistake in the final report, because the seat didn't fail (NIST made it rigid, to start with), and I don't know if the walk-off happened before or after the 4 hours shown in that figure.

But most importantly, that's irrelevant to the argument. The fact that the connection had failed horizontally is enough for the girder between C44 and C79 to not restrain C79 from moving east, therefore neither beam P3016 nor the state of the girder connection in the vertical direction are relevant to the restraining of the column.

The other beam that gerrycan mentioned was H3016, whose connection, together with that of two of its neighbours, was completely failed horizontally. Therefore it could not restrain the girder between C76 and C79 from expanding (I can't see how it could have done it in the first place, anyway), and from pushing C79 east and C76 west as NIST said it did.

The girder between C79 and C80 was buckled, as was the other element that gerrycan mentioned that was restraining C79, namely girder B2002 between C80 and C81, which I can't see in which way could it restrain the girder.

So no, the column was not "heavily restrained". The only thing that could restrain it from moving east due to the push of the girder between C76 and C79, is the buckled girder between C79 and C80, namely A2002, which wasn't in a good angle to restrain that movement anyway.

I think that there are only two explanations for gerrycan bringing that up:

- Desperately trying to kill the messenger.
- Missing the context of my reply, which was about horizontal restraint of C79.

 

[DGM]

Forgetting the kink?

Are you suggesting the demolition started at the top? If so, by what means, no blast effects are seen. If you're maintaining the demolition was towards the bottom then you also have to explain why it would look different than the NIST theory.

Worth highlighting.

This is a real problem for MM and the "truthers". Even considering the fact they have not presented a theory, all of their "thoughts" don't explain the observably better than the NIST.

Their fixation on "free-fall" (and CD) was their demise*.

* yes the "movement" is dead.

 

[Miragememories]

"For the record, I agree it was relatively level when comparing the east side to the west side…"

It is difficult to argue with something so obvious if you care about having your opinions respected.

"Speaking of the kink, can you show me where the kink is in the following picture?"

I hope this makes it more evident. We are talking about a 'kink' after all.

 

[DGM]

It is difficult to argue with something so obvious if you care about having your opinions respected.



[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/WTC7LevelCollapse-lowcontr_zps62091716.png[/qimg]

I hope this makes it more evident. We are talking about a 'kink' after all.

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/WTC7KINKING_zps203b04d1.png[/qimg]

What a surprise, MM skipped over the hard question...........

 

[GlennB]

- Missing the context of my reply, which was about horizontal restraint of C79.

Those 3 elements are "restraining" the column (in 2 cases, at a distance) at close to 90° to the action of the force in question. i.e. "not very much", afaics

 

[DGM]

Where the "truthers" stand today.

The "official story" is wrong but they can't actually prove why (in detail).


"Truthers" have no alternative explanation that fits observable better than the "official".

Did I miss anything?